more fine print

[A] federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.

The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and hence the five-person board did not have a quorum to operate.

But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intra-session” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks. They said Mr. Obama erred when he said he could claim the power to determine when he could make appointments.

“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the judges said in their opinion.

[T]he court had returned to the Constitution’s intent, which was to make the recess appointment an emergency power for use only when Congress was not available.

[I]t’s not about protecting the Congress from the president and the president from Congress …. The Constitution draws these lines ultimately to limit the government to protect the people.

In their ruling the judges said their duty is not to speed up the workings of government, but to hold to constitutional principles. “If some administrative inefficiency results from our construction of the original meaning of the Constitution, that does not empower us to change what the Constitution commands,” the judges wrote. [more]

Yesssss!
More, please.

9 Comments!

  1. JoeBandMember™
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 3:59 pm |

    So, it appears that CERTAIN parts of the Constitution are in effect and other parts are not.

    WTF?

  2. Jess
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 4:09 pm |

    “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    I think we can and those that can change things are taking the important step.

  3. DougM (Progophobe)
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 5:10 pm |

    JBM (1)
    Yeah, I’m rootin’ for a trend.

  4. geezerette
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 5:27 pm |

    I’m waiting— lets see what happens— he/they don’t cararre!!

  5. Freddie Sykes
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 5:37 pm |

    Obama will ignore the ruling and continue business as usual. He may react if the SCOTUS rules against him or then again, he may not.

    The AG will do nothing.

    We need businesses affected to start suing over invalid NLRB rulings.

    Then someone should sue for the salaries and expenses from the illegal appointees.

  6. ZZMike
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 6:41 pm |

    I think I see pigs flying. A court actually upheld the Constitution over Obama.

    But I remember an earlier President (but not which one), when the Supreme Court ruled against him, said, “OK, they have made their ruling. Now let them enforce it.”

    (I think it was Andy Jackson and something to do with the Indians.)

  7. JoeBandMember™
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 10:38 pm |

    Orly Taitz will find out on February 15th if it’s just a flash in the pan. She’s got enough evidence to convict Teh One about twenty times over. But so have others.

    Until then we have a glint of hope.

  8. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 11:24 pm |

    Saw a list of 174 sheriffs who will not enforce Captain Shitstain’s gun grab EO’s; many have writen Plugs a nice polite Fuck You letter:
    http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/list-of-sheriffs-standing-up-against-obamas-gun-control-updated/31948/

  9. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 11:27 pm |

    Sorry, crossposted above.
    I meant to say the three illegal members means the Board did not have a quorum, and a lack of quorum should invalidate the Board’s past year of rulings, which will just make union leader heads explode.
    Heh.